I keep trying to explain that if evidence emerges for a global and synchronous hot MCA (and it hasn’t, nor does R13 provide it) then we have still more evidence that the climate system is relatively sensitive to radiative forcing.
Therefore we have more evidence that it will respond as predicted to increased CO2 forcing.
Perhaps it is you who should be considering what R13 really implies for your position?
Do you really not grasp that the more variable past climate can be shown to be, the more sensitive it is being shown to be? It is all one.
By the latest puff piece, that wanders all over the place, Revkin is another interpreter of interpretations.
“Our work showed that intermediate waters in the Pacific had been cooling steadily from about 10,000 years ago” said Linsley. This places the recent warming of Pacific intermediate waters in temporal context. The trend has now reversed in a big way and the deep ocean is warming.”
So, what are you trying to say Rednoise?
It sure looks to me, from hundreds of studies, like the current warming is unprecedented, in the last several thousand years, and the why is a combination of carbon budgeting and physics.
It’s possible, even likely, that Rednoise doesn’t know why the climate system was warmer ~6ky ago than it is now. It’s possible that he is unaware that this was the consequence of precessional forcing (a consequence of Earth orbital dynamics and part of the impulse than terminates glacials). That’s why the Holocene used to be warmer and why it has slowly cooled over the last ~6ka. Until the start of the C20th, when the cooling trend abruptly reversed. But precessional forcing has been declining for the last ~10ka which begs the question: what other forcing has increased to cause modern warming?
We know the answer to that, so Rednoise is left flapping around in the mess he always creates whenever he goes anywhere near paleoclimate.
He never learns.
This is interesting. Mann on Rosenthal et al. (2013):
One complication with their comparison is that the dramatic warming of the past half century is not evident in the various sediment data analyzed in the study. “Modern” conditions conditions are typically defined by the “tops” of the sediment core obtained by drilling down below the ocean bottom. But sediment core tops are notoriously bad estimates of “current” climate conditions because of various factors, including the limited temporal resolution owing to slow sediment deposition rates, and processes that mix and smear information at the top of the core. Core tops for these reasons tend not to record the most recent climate changes. Thus, the researchers’ data do not explicitly resolve the large recent increases in temperature (and heat content). But if the warming of the past half century is not resolved by their data, then the assumption that those data can be registered against a common modern baseline (the authors use a reference period of 1965-1970) too is suspect. That registration is critical to their conclusion that modern heat content has not exceeded the bounds of the past two millennia.
A five year modern baseline for calibrating millennial proxies from core tops?
Rosenthal and Oppo are respected researchers and Rosenthal has published with David Lea, who has done important work on the interpretation of foram proxies, so everybody knows what they are talking about and this paper should be taken seriously.
Who knows, it might be more evidence for a moderately high Holocene climate sensitivity to radiative perturbation.
Presumably this is what prompted Rosenthal to say (emphasis original):
“We may have underestimated the efficiency of the oceans as a storehouse for heat and energy,” Rosenthal said. “It may buy us some time – how much time, I don’t really know – to come to terms with climate change. But it’s not going to stop climate change.”
I suspect that Rednoise has slunk away again but that last quote in your #4 is unequivocal and inline with all current respected research.
I had that one earmarked for delivery today, I was reading. stuff before turning out the lights.
WRT the Mann quote: I would like to add to this:
But sediment core tops are notoriously bad estimates of “current” climate conditions because of various factors, including the limited temporal resolution owing to slow sediment deposition rates,…
Taking that emphasised phrase, this is a point the crops up in Orsi et. al. on page 5 at 
 The inversion of borehole temperature does not allow us to comment on whether this warming rate  is unprecedented, because of the loss of temporal resolution with time (Figure 2).
 WRT arguments presented at 
This could be interpreted as meaning that they don’t have temporal resolution for the recent warming period mentioned, but that IMHO is incorrect the lack of temporal resolution is within the preceding periods of the MWP and LIA which still appear to be heterogeneous spatially and temporally as indicated in this from page 1 at 1.1:
It is still unclear whether the Southern Hemisphere high latitudes had a temperature response synchronous to that of the Northern Hemisphere: changes in the solar forcing would call for hemispheric synchroneity, but evidence from the southward movement of the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone in the Pacific Ocean [Sachs et al., 2009], and from changes in the ocean circulation [Keigwin and Boyle, 2000] argue for a delayed [Goosse et al., 2004] or inverse response [Broecker, 2000].
Which point of course you highlighted at Page 5 # 9.
Sou at Hot Whopper in another article that pins AWatts links to a post written by Lewandowsky, Mann, Bauld, Hastings, and Elizabeth F. Loftus (Loftus I have read and heard the latter in a Salk conference, ‘Beyond Belief’ back in 2006 ) The Subterranean War on Science.
Read it and note Rednoise. What do you think you are doing by regurgitating McIntyre’s deceptive nonsense of which this points to but one example?
Another common tool of harassment involves FOI requests. Under many legislations around the world, email correspondence by an academic is subject to almost unconditional release. During the last 9 months, the first author has been subject to numerous requests for correspondence and other documents, including trivial pedantry such as the precise time and date stamps of blog posts. In a paradoxical twist, accusations of impropriety were launched against the first author when an FOI-release confirmed that inconvenient research (Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, 2013) was conducted with ethics approval. The allegations — by bloggers unaccountable to any form of review or ethical scrutiny — …
That highlighted behaviour was employed by McIntyre WRT climate data, and the FOI requests were carried out in such a way (practically a DOS attack see elsewhere here) as to cause disruption to the research of the scientists concerned. It is noteworthy that in spite of this they continued to publish peer reviewed papers. McIntyre’s record here is ….?
But that is not all, it transpired that McIntyre had the data all along, which makes his actions all the more culpable. That is a supported fact.
If you have any shred of humanity Rednoise (and others of similar behaviour) then you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for continuing to aid and abet. Remember those last terms – at some time they may bite you.
And H/T Sou, GRACE Sees Groundwater Losses Around the World , Australia you have been warned and why Israel has invested massively in water purification – which does not help with the underlying causes – far from it.
And what effect groundwater depletion in California will have on seismic activity in that region is yet to be discovered.
And if all the above wasn’t enough we have Solar Activity and the so-called “Little Ice Age”, also commented on by Stoat under ‘Lockwood, Hudson, Beeb, Maunder. Sigh‘
Note the section headed: ‘Evidence is growing for a regional effect of low solar activity.
Yes. Do you remember long, tiresome exchanges between myself and Sunspot and Duffer/Rednoise where I kept on telling them that NH regional winter temperature modulation by solar variability did nothing to GAT? Do you recall those happy days?
Ian Forrester page 5 # 60
Lionel, that is the second article in a series by Ridley, the first was called “Why dishonest bankers are good for the world”.
That article appears to have vanished into the weeds. Unless of course Google is embarrassed by it.
Lionel, I was renaming his book “The Rational Optimist” where he explains that there should be no government regulations of just about anything. Thus he would like to get away with some very dishonest things but is only stopped by government regulations.
He is on the wrong side of three areas which are hurting the common man; he is anti-government regulations, he is an AGW denier and he wrongly supports the use of GMO’s in agriculture.
Thanks Ian, I have not read that book, although did know about it , as I tend to steer clear of spending money on such and thus contributing to his pension fund.
It is bad enough that I have other titles by Riddley, the only thing that stops me burning such is the carbon locked up in them.
Which latter makes me wonder about the carbon footprint of books as compared to using a Kindle to access them.
Personally I am not comfortable with this latter means of reading book as they tend to serve the needs of the fiction reader rather than those like myself who mostly read more technical stuff where the ability to quickly cross refer to other sections, notes, bibliography et., or even other books on allied topics, would be not well served by current Kindle like technology.
 I have noticed a few reviews or articles on that one over recent times and may well go look some up again.
I suspect this is common knowledge here but I recall the problems that Matt Ridley’s uncle Nicholas Ridley, Baron Ridley of Liddesdale caused for the Falkland Islands and in turn Britain’s armed forces. Many of my one time colleagues did not return and some of those who did had their lives dramatically changed.
I guess the hard nosed would say well, ‘That’s what you accept the King’s shilling for’, but that particular waste was so unnecessary. And political ineptitude meant that the fleet was ill equipped to defend itself from air attack in confined water. WW2 Crete all over again, except that the Falklands were retained after recapture. I was sickened at the way government fortunes rebounded on the back of such a debacle rescued only by the heroics of HM forces.
But it was ever thus WRT politico’s and military preparedness. I was only too well aware (I read much naval history in my early teens) that in the early stages of a conflict there are severe losses due to higher authority not being up to the mark (Aboukier, Cressy, Hogue and Good Hope, Monmouth and Formidable of WW1). I was severely concious of our material lack during the so called Cold War, and being below decks working in the forward upper hangar when we hit Sam Kotlin I tough a shooting war had started – Ark being a prime target for Soviet forces, the close presence of which we were always aware.
ISTR in the late 1970s, because of our interest in ‘The Red Plum’, aka HMS Endurance, we took in interest in media reports on the political situation down south. I also STR that Nicholas Ridley had some conflict of interest concerning the ‘Flaklands Island Company’.
So self interest is very much at the heart of this family’s manoeuvrings in and out of parliament.
Lionel, Kindles are fine for referencing in any piece of non-fiction if the ‘book’ has been properly formatted, as a link takes you straight to the reference, and the back key takes you right back to where you were. Beats having the other bookmark in the back of the book!
You can also highlight sections of text you want to keep, and store them both on the kindle, and in the cloud, where you can later quote them with ease by just copy/pasting!
Plus you can change text size to suit your eyesight, choose a serif or sans-serif font, read 8 things at once in the one gizmo with no problems keeping track of where you were, listen to audiobooks, too, and own a copy of the book you just read a good review of within 60 seconds – this isn’t even hyperbole!
Plus all the classics are free! Or, say, $1.99 if someone’s gone to the trouble of indexing and creating properly-functioning chapter links for, say, all of Poe, or Eliot, or Conan Doyle.
What they are useless for, though, is anything requiring illustrations. Absolutely frickin’ hopeless! I would never buy, say, the Adobe Photoshop CS6 ‘Classroom in a Book’ Kindle edition, and I can hardly believe such things even exist…
Also PDF ‘books’ on kindles are crap, too, as you have to play ‘run around the screen’ just to read a page.
But, on the whole, sequestering carbon in the form of libraries is probably doomed – except for technical publications and art-house coffee books!
George Monbiot has plenty to say on the production of that book as seen here:
This state-hating free marketeer ignores his own failed experiment.
Matt Ridley’s Rational Optimist is telling the rich what they want to hear.
From that latter it would appear that Ridley is an apologist or fan of Bjørn Lomborg, no surprise:
2. Ridley hilariously maintained that “no significant error has come to light” in Bjørn Lomborg’s book The Sceptical Environmentalist. I pointed out that it contains so many significant errors that an entire book – The Lomborg Deception by Howard Friel – was required to document them. Now, without having read Friel’s book, Ridley accepts that it is all nonsense on the word of … Bjørn Lomborg! Quite right too: what more objective reviewer of a book about Bjørn Lomborg’s errors could there be than, er, Bjørn Lomborg? Ridley then has the blazing chutzpah to state that “Monbiot should be embarrassed to be relying on a source of this quality”. No, he doesn’t mean Lomborg’s rebuttal, he means Friel’s book.
I think that is enough on Ridley for now, from me at least.
Bill thanks for that
What they are useless for, though, is anything requiring illustrations.
which, as suspected, pretty much rules them out for me as many of the books I read have illustrations of one form or another.
Now the Patrick O’Brian ‘Master and Commander’ series on Kindle is another matter, although supporting literature that explains technical terms would fail on that above issue.
I seem to remember this episode was a case of you barking up the wrong tree, as opposed to your normal state of just barking.
No, you lying shit, it was a case of several deniers – you among them – attempting to conflate cold N European winters and the *possible* solar link with the “it’s the sun” argument used by deniers to deny, you know, anthropogenically forced climate change.
This is the second time in two pages that I have had to tell you to stop lying.
Since I can guess where this might be heading, don’t soil yourself further until you have read Mike Lockwood’s non-denier-misrepresented account of what his research actually says.
No it isn’t BBD who is barking it is Rednoise who is suffering from serial amnesia.
That is sound advice to read Lockwood Rednoise, see also my # 18 above!
I think he’s lying, not forgetting. He hasn’t forgotten the kicking I gave him on that thread.
Isn’t it interesting that deniers – almost all of them – are vile? Either liars, narcissists or fantasists or some gruesome blend of the three. You never meet a nice one.
more on Lockwood at Climate Crocks.
It looks like Lindzen is trying to kick dust in people’s eyes — again.
Ah! Rednoise. You missed your chance to get in first with a roundabout mention of that now.
Another fine example of the Black Knight Syndrome* from RedRump.
Don’t worry, pet – in your world, you’re winning – and that’s what counts!
*As in Monty Python’s Holy Grail bleeding and limbless Black Knight; “You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what’s coming to you! I’ll bite your legs off!”
although supporting literature that explains technical terms would fail on that above issue.
Have you any recommendations?
We’ll be brief, and this is, after all, the most open of open threads.
So, Rednose has Judith Curry and Bob Tisdale in his corner, huh?
Now, what should an amateur like me think of sombody’s opinion when he supports that opinion exclusively with the writings of cranks?
(Yes, as of this year, we can no longer deny that Curry is now very firmly engaged with Crankdom).
No surprises here:
Tony Abbott really should be putting forward the “science” (cough, choke) on which he’s basing his fantasy of “Direct Action”.
Great Nature study, Bernard. This is a point that I have been trying to hammer home to deniers for several years- that ecosystems cannot merely shift polewards in response to warming. A complex interplay between abiotic and biotic factors both in the soil and above-ground domains will potentially decouple and thus unravel critical processes that govern the rules underpinning the assembly and functioning of ecosystems.
Those arguing that warming will benefit nature and thus humanity are doing so on the basis of having a very poor understanding of an array of processes in complex adaptive systems. Richard Tol is a major culprit, but there are others. Incidentally, I am now visiting Professor at the same university in Amsterdam where Tol is also a visiting Professor, and it is already being suggested that I meet him to discuss the many elementary errors in his calculations. I don’t expect him to listen, though. Once a sceptic always a sceptic. Tol is IMHO so much up to his neck now on the denial or downplay bandwagon that he’d lose face were he to have to admit that much of what he says is nonsense.
BBD #25 WRT Patrick O’Brian:
A Sea of Words: Lexicon and Companion for Patrick O’Brian’s Seafaring Tales
Harbors and High Seas: An Atlas and Geographical Guide to the Complete Aubrey-Maturin Novels of Patrick O’Brian
Dean King is an American but nonetheless has done a reasonable job.
I recall the Dolphin Inn that the party stopped at, one of the later books ‘Yellow Admiral’ or ‘Blue at the Mizzen’
Now for the more serious, but an excellent tome (I was lucky enough to catch one cheap from a book club):
Falconer’s Universal Dictionary of the Marine, 1815.
That one is a bit pricey, but if you are really into this stuff you will find it fascinating and Christmas is coming up – hint.
Get to know the difference between your ‘futtocks’ and your ‘futtock-shrouds’. Get a handle on ‘cross-catharpin(g)s’ and now the difference between sheets and sails. No sails ain’t sheets. Although ‘cross-cartharpins’ are not easy to actually understand given some conflicting descriptions but the principle and the why become clear.
It can be useful to have a handle on the maritime history of the age and I have many recommends for that. I’ll have to leave that for another, link limit, or email perhaps.
The War of 1812 is especially worth looking up.
Also I can recommend titles that describe the structure, building, fitting out – armament and sailing-rig and operating of ships, ships from Jacobean times through to the end of sail in the RN.
Oops BBD, sorry, I left a thought hanging, was interrupted by SWBO coming home.
I recall the Dolphin Inn that the party stopped at, one of the later books ‘Yellow Admiral’ or ‘Blue at the Mizzen’ from my time at the Naval Air-station at Yeovilton, FAA Fighter School (Sea Vixens & Phantoms as well as Hunters etc), the Dolphin being a well know watering hole in Ilchester. There being also ‘The Cow’ and ‘The Bull’. Happy days, in retrospect.
Another book, which I obtained many years ago, is The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea. Peter Kemp is a respect historian and ex naval officer Find in here more illumination on topics mentioned above, also the difference between ‘hawser-laid’ and ‘cable-laid’ rope.
That’s excellent, Lionel. Exactly what I was after. Many thanks.
Humanity is certainly heading for the abyss. There isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell IMHO that we will remotely become a sustainable society before the shit really hits the fan:
And is it not telling that our leaders including those of the UK are not facing up to this and continue with such hair brained schemes as HS2, a High Speed Rail link between initially London and Birmingham and expanding airport runway capacity. Also a new port of London facility on the Thames to handle cargoes from ever larger container ships.
Clearly the public is being hoodwinked, either the Wizards are incompetent or mendacious, the latter being in order to to keep The Munchkins happy.
I wonder how many pantomimes will have some element of Baum’s story as a theme ignoring how deeply ironic this is at this time especially as Baum was the offspring of an early ‘oil baron’.
I see a cross between Mad Max, and I am no big fan of Mel Gibson and Logan’s Run developing.
Humanity, but not as we know it Jeff.
So you see Rednoise
Oceans heating up faster now than in the past 10,000 years, says new study.
I bet you are real glad that you brought up that Rosenthal et.al. paper now.
There is one aspect of the Aubrey-Maturin novels we have not touched upon and that is the reason they came together in the first instance – a shared interest in the music ‘of the age’. If you need help with that I can point you in the right directions.
Lionel, you did mention this a while back, so I have a couple of pointers from you already. But if this isn’t what you had in mind, speak up!
Ah! Yes, I remember now. It’s age you know and that I have been pointing out links to such music to another fighting the denial swarms – Martin Lack. I thought it was only he that I had been discussing baroque music with. Plenty of clips on YouTube from the film ‘Master and Commander’ which provides some enlightenment here.
I do it all the time, and I am younger than you. I didn’t realise ML was another PO’B fan – speaks well for the man, although his blog and commentary elsewhere does that eloquently enough.
I am not sure if ML appreciates PO’B it was not discussed other than my pointing to YouTube clips of Master & Commander that included some Boccherini. ML happened to mention how he liked Albinoni in one of his blog comments and we took it from there.
I pointed him at examples from
Boccherini some in POB
Corelli some in POB
Locatelli some in POB
Vivaldi some in POB
J S Bach
Hilarious post at Sou’s place today. Vincent Gray of the New Zealand Science Coalition [sic] reckons:
The climate models favoured by “Climate Change” “scientists” completely ignore the scientific discoveries of genuine climate scientists since time immerorial (sic). They promote completely different computer models based on the following absurd principles
· The earth can be considered flat
· The sun has a constant intensity, both day and night.
· All energy exchanges are by radiation
· Energy entering the earth equals that leaving
· All change is caused by changes in:greenhouse gases
· Natural influences are merely :”variable”
I particularly like the third last one. It is exactly because that is NOT the case that mainstream science say we have a problem. I don’t think Vincent even knows what the “AGW hypothesis” is.
Vincent thinks hundreds of climate scientists are so stupid as to believe the above. The alternative hypothesis is that Vincent is so stupid to think they do or so medacious as to claim they do knowing they don’t.
Hundreds wrong or one? Occam’s razor says its probably the octogenarian.
Who’s up for a trip to pariah country?
Seriously, will these twerps be the worst government we’ve ever had, or will it just seem like that in the cold hard light of the present? I remember JWH being an arse, but at 6 years distance Mr Rabbit is making me have icky nostalgic feelings…
New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.
Past time for more thread.